Judgment P. Devadass, J. 1. Petition for bail. 2. Offences alleged are under Section 302 and 379 of IPC in Cr.No.4 of 2002. 3. It is very unfortunate that the petitioner is in jail as an under trial prisoners for 12 long years. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, co-accused were granted bail. Petitioner alone is languishing in jail. He is in long incarceration. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is ready to face the trial, but the trial has not been conducted. Petitioner cannot be blamed for this. His human right has been violated. Dismissal of his bail petition by the trial Court is not on sound reasoning. 6. The learned Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner is involved in a case of murder for gain. Every effort is being taken to produce the witnesses. 7. In the circumstances, a report has been called for from the trial Court. Report received. 8. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the averments in the bail petition and also the report of the trial court. 9. Petitioner is A-5 in this case. He is in jail for nearly 12 years. 10. Petitioner is being prosecuted before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishagiri in S.C.No.326 of 2004 for the offences under section 302, 307 I.P.C. The case is ripe for trial. However, witnesses were not produced. 11. Bail plea was opposed by the prosecution on the ground that the petitioner has no permanent address and he has no roots in society and if he is granted bail, he will not appear before the Court and it will hamper the trial. 12. Petitioner sought for bail before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.188 of 2014. 13. The learned trial Judge dismissed the bail petition on the ground that since the witnesses are in West Bengal, Assam, Rajasthan there is difficulty in producing the witnesses. 14. The learned Judge failed to note the following aspects. (1) Petitioner is in jail as an under trial for 12 years. (2) Witnesses have to be produced by the prosecution (3) Non-production of witnesses is not a fault of the accused. (4) Petitioner is not responsible for the delay in conducting the trial. (5) Petitioner is having family. There is Voter card and ration card. (1) Petitioner is in jail as an under trial for 12 years. (2) Witnesses have to be produced by the prosecution (3) Non-production of witnesses is not a fault of the accused. (4) Petitioner is not responsible for the delay in conducting the trial. (5) Petitioner is having family. There is Voter card and ration card. (See Moti Ram & others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 (4) SCC 47 ) 15. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner has no permanent address or roots in society. 16. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilty alleged as against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Till such time, the accused is presumed to be innocent. 17. One's right of presumption itself is his basic human right. Merely because a person has become an accused, he cannot be made a cellular servitude. He cannot be stated to have lost his human right. He cannot be treated as an animal. 18. Article 21, Constitution of India guarantees right to life and liberty to everyone. It is a basic human right. It is soul of the Indian Constitution. If this right is not available then all other rights will be rendered nugatory. 19. Denial of bail is a restriction on the right to live guaranteed under Article 21, Constitution of India (See Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2012 (1) SCC 40 and Sunil Bhatra vs. Delhi Administration and others, A.I.R.1978 SC 1675). 20. The said right to life so guaranteed under Article 21, Constitution of India can be taken away only by a 'procedure established by law'. The 'procedure' must be 'fair', 'reasonable' and not 'inequitable'. (See Union of India vs. Maneka Gandhi, 1978 (1) SCC 248 ) 21. Keeping a person in jail as an under trial for 12 years without evidence, trial and conviction is not fair. It is unfair. It is unreasonable. It is inequitable. It indicates that there is some cracks in our Criminal Justice System. 22. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had spent considerable part of his life in jail viz., 12 years. When his innocence itself has been considered a basic human right till he is proved otherwise keeping him in jail without being told that he was convicted or acquitted, is inhuman and it is violative of one's human right. 23. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had spent considerable part of his life in jail viz., 12 years. When his innocence itself has been considered a basic human right till he is proved otherwise keeping him in jail without being told that he was convicted or acquitted, is inhuman and it is violative of one's human right. 23. Now, right to 'speedy trial' and 'speedy justice' have become a component of Article 21, Constitution of India. This fundamental right is imposed on the State. But in this case, there is delay of 12 years in conducting the trial. It is mainly because of the non production of witnesses by the prosecution. Petitioner cannot be blamed for this. There is complete infraction of petitioner's fundamental right. 24. Right to life guaranteed under Article 21, Constitution of India involves right to livelihood. It implies right to earn. If right to earn is infringed, it is violative of Article 21, Constitution of India. 25. Petitioner is entitled to earn for his livelihood and he has to earn to maintain his family. But, by keeping him in jail for 12 years as an undertrial without evidence, trial, conviction is violative of his right to live and right to earn to have a livelihood. 26. Right to be defended by a lawyer of his choice has been enshrined in section 303 of Cr. P.C. His right to 'consult' and to be 'defended' by a lawyer of his choice has been elevated to the level of a constitutional right in Article 22(1) of Constitution of India. 27. Right of legal representation becomes very important when a person is being prosecuted for serious offence such as capital charge under section 302 I.P.C. A person inside the jail continuously for 12 years, cannot effectively exercise his said legal and constitutional right. Thus, keeping a person without trial, conviction will disable him from making effective defence in the case put up against him. 28. It is also infraction of principles of natural justice and concept of fair trial. It is very very horrible, painful and mental agony for a person to remain in jail for 12 years without a trial. It is an indication that there is some defect in our jail, bail and Criminal Justice System. It requires revamping. 29. Article 39-A, Constitution of India mandates right to legal aid. It is very very horrible, painful and mental agony for a person to remain in jail for 12 years without a trial. It is an indication that there is some defect in our jail, bail and Criminal Justice System. It requires revamping. 29. Article 39-A, Constitution of India mandates right to legal aid. It is duty of the State to provide legal assistance to accused person under section 304 Cr. P.C. To implement this, State Legal Services Authority at the State level and at each district and at Taluk level, have been constituted and are functioning under the supervision of judges. There are Legal Aid Panel Advocates. 30. Even a person in jail cannot be treated like an animal. (See Francis Coralie Mullin vs. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, A.I.R. 1981 SC 746). That is how, Legal Aid panel advocates are being deputed to jail to collect details of under-trials who are languishing in jail without trial and are suffering without necessary legal assistance. 31. We are very much surprised how the petitioner has been left unnoticed by legal aid authorities and panel advocates nearly for 12 long years. 32. Considering all the above aspects, I am inclined to grant him bail. 33. Ordered as under:- (i) Bail granted; (ii) Petitioner and his wife shall execute a bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. (iii) The said Judge is directed to dispose of the Sessions case in S.C.No.326 of 2004 expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Trial must be conducted on day to day basis. (iv) The Member Secretary/District Judge, Tamilnadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai will instruct the Chairman/District Legal Services Authorities to request the Secretary and Panel Advocates to collect particulars of such under trials who are in jail endlessly and will give them necessary instructions to make arrangement to provide necessary legal assistance to them. 34. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Member Secretary, Tamilnadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai for taking necessary follow-up action.